A big blow to film production at Kodak and Fuji

BetterSense · Sep 7, 2010

Analog requires two projectors as there is no electronic switching mechanism.

I'm having trouble understanding why 3D can't just be done with one projector and a special film print. Why can't every odd frame be shot for the left eye, and every even frame be shot for the right eye, or vice versa? The appropriate cross-polarization could be accomplished in the film print itself, or with a switching filter.

Photo Engineer · Sep 7, 2010

BetterSense said:
I'm having trouble understanding why 3D can't just be done with one projector and a special film print. Why can't every odd frame be shot for the left eye, and every even frame be shot for the right eye, or vice versa? The appropriate cross-polarization could be accomplished in the film print itself, or with a switching filter.

That can be done with 2D movies to give a 3D effect, but it still requires some switching method. If you can figure out how to do it, then I suggest that you see a good patent attorney.

PE

Worker 11811 · Sep 7, 2010

The Technicolor 3-D process I linked to earlier in this thread does just that. It is called an "over and under" process.
As the film is pulled down, through the projector, each frame is split in half, horizontally. The left eye's image is on top. The right eye's image is on the bottom. There is a prism box that goes on the front of the lens which passes each eye's image through a polarizer just as you mention. The viewer wears polarized glasses with the lenses rotated at 90º angles to each other. (45º to the left and 45º to the right, IRRC.)

http://www.technicolor.com/en/lo/3d-innovation/3d-in-the-theater

Digitally, one single video projector can be used to project 3-D. Theoretically, it is very simple to do. Practically, it's another thing, all together.

Basically they just double the frame rate and alternate the left eye and the right eye images. A spinning, polarized, optical glass disk is placed in the light path. It's on a stepping motor of some sort so that the computer "knows" what angle it's rotated at. When the disk rotates into the 45º-left position, the left eye's frame is projected. When the disk makes a quarter turn, the right eye's frame is projected. It sounds simple.

Two problems occur. First, only half the projector's light is shown on the screen at any time. The polarizer blocks half the light. Further, the left-right images are only projected one at a time. Digital 3-D projection can be very dim compared to film 3-D.
Second, that spinning glass disk rotates at several hundred RPMs. They have been known to shatter if they are not perfectly balanced. Just the glass, alone, costs a couple thousand dollars. This does not include any collateral damage from flying glass shards and it does not include the service call to make the repairs.

One thing about digital projection is that they are quite a bit dimmer, compared to a properly maintained film projector.
A film projector is supposed to produce 16 foot-lamberts brightness at the center of the screen. For digital, the standard has been lowered to 14 foot lamberts. At the edges, the brightness drops off to 12 ft-L. This is for 2-D. Cut that down for 3-D.

Most digital 3-D installations require a silvered screen to be installed as well as the polarizing box and the software to operate it. If you have a properly aligned film projector you might be able to get away with a standard white screen when you project 3-D.

Hexavalent · Sep 7, 2010

Worker 11811 said:
Basically they just double the frame rate and alternate the left eye and the right eye images. A spinning, polarized, optical glass disk is placed in the light path. It's on a stepping motor of some sort so that the computer "knows" what angle it's rotated at. When the disk rotates into the 45º-left position, the left eye's frame is projected. When the disk makes a quarter turn, the right eye's frame is projected. It sounds simple.

Reminiscent of Laurens Hammond's 'Teleview' system of the 1920's.

Photo Engineer · Sep 7, 2010

Randy;

Those problems you point out are why that system is not really entirely practical and why it is being outsold by digital. So yes, I amend what I said to recognize that a system does exist, but which has been essentially rejected due to the inherent problems. And, anyone solving those problems will have a patentable item.

Thanks for pointing this out.

PE

Q.G. · Sep 7, 2010

hoffy said:
If a good marketer started a campaign that eating shit was good for you, you would be surprised with the number of people having poo sandwiches for their lunch each day.

I don't believe that, no.

I wouldn't be surprised...

Ektagraphic · Sep 7, 2010

Is there any idea on anything that will slow down the progression of these digital projection units?

andrewkirkby · Sep 7, 2010

Ektagraphic said:
Is there any idea on anything that will slow down the progression of these digital projection units?

Buy some cinemas.

Cromlech · Sep 7, 2010

Ektagraphic said:
Is there any idea on anything that will slow down the progression of these digital projection units?

some major electornic interference of some kind all over the world.
say, a nuke.

Ektagraphic · Sep 7, 2010

andrewkirkby said:
Buy some cinemas.

If I could, I would!

Worker 11811 · Sep 7, 2010

The big thing that really draws theaters to digital projection, I think, is the reduction in payroll when you don't have to pay so many operators.

A 10-plex can be run, easily, by one operator. I, personally, have run a 20-plex by myself but many theaters will have two operators on duty just for safety. If they switch to digital one operator can easily run a 30-plex by himself because 90% of the work is done at opening and closing, powering up the equipment in the morning and shutting down at night. The rest of the time, that operator can be downstairs sweeping auditorium floors. Even when I ran a 10-plex, I'd end up at the podium taking tickets between showtimes. With digital, theater management can say we don't need full time operators at all.

You can spend $100,000 on equipment and write off the depreciation as a business expense but you can't write off payroll. In fact, you have to pay taxes on it. Don't you?

So, the best way to stop theaters from buying digital equipment is to make it so it's cheaper to hire employees than it is to buy automated equipment.

Are you listening, Mr. President?

Photo Engineer · Sep 8, 2010

Randy;

What does the union have to say about # of employees and the wages paid? Rochester theaters have a projectionists union.

PE

eddym · Sep 8, 2010

Worker 11811 said:
You can spend $100,000 on equipment and write off the depreciation as a business expense but you can't write off payroll. In fact, you have to pay taxes on it. Don't you?

You're wrong and right. Of course payroll is a business expense, so yes, it is a deduction -a "write-off". The tax on payroll is the employer's matching portion of your Social Security withholding. Basically, they match what you pay in SS. If you are self-employed, lucky you, you get to pay both halves!! :eek:

Oh, and as for the equipment; you don't "write it off" in one year; it has to be depreciated over time. There are ways to accelerate depreciation, but you don't get to expense out a $100,000 investment in one year, unless there is some specific legislation allowing you that "loophole".

MDR · Sep 8, 2010

Long time lurker and movie afficiando

I just wanted to correct the assumption that 3D requires Digital projection or extensive upgrades. Panavision offers a 3D system compatible with all screens as well as all Film and Digital Projectors.
http://www.panavision.com/in_frame_detail.php?spotid=39

Photo Engineer · Sep 8, 2010

I don't think anyone claimed that this was not true. I saw 3D Cinemascope and Anaglyph 3D in the 50s.

PE

MDR · Sep 8, 2010

I'am sorry your right but to quote you

"As 3D becomes more popular, theaters (except I Max) must convert to digital if they are to show 3D movies. This causes a huge decrease in the demand for color print film and reduces throughput at both Kodak and Fuji." and that's simple not true.Digital to Film via Filmrecorder together with Panavision's or similar 3d Systems is a cheaper option for Cinemas who don't have the funds or possibilities to convert to digital projection (a huge number worlwide).

jamesgignac · Sep 8, 2010

Just adding my piece: 3D films are just another gimmick used to draw the young crowds. I have not seen any of the new 3D movies out there but I have spoken to a few of my peers who have and they basically reiterate what most people here are saying - it's a headache wrapped in a price-tag.

I really don't think 3D films will take over or ever secure the bulk of the film production industry (I'm talking numbers of films produced, not their associated box-office income.) I do believe that 3D has a place in computer use into the future - there are many companies working on 3D desktop displays (with great potential for organizing multiple windows in a sensible way), applications, and, of course, games. Computers and 3D make a bit of sense and with the amount of money being put into developing 3D televisions it's probably going to have a bit of an impact on that market as well...neither of these, of course, have any effect on us at all.

The bottom line is that the populous votes with their wallets when it comes to culture and unfortunately flashy novelties always have an immediate impact that can sway the distribution line in a way that is not beneficial to us. It's true that the less people that use film the more it will cost us, the less options we will have, etc. but I don't think this little impact will have a dramatic effect on the bulk of theaters out there. The big cinemas switched to digital years ago and the small, independent shops can neither afford or have the genuine interest in going that route.

Let's all go out and see a nice movie at a small theater - either a classic or something new which has been shot and distributed on film. We can effect the communities we move in so the next time someone asks you if you want to see the new Pixar (or whatever) 3D movie you can tell them that they're lame and instead invite their girlfriend out to see "Otto e Mezzo".

Photo Engineer · Sep 8, 2010

MDR said:
"As 3D becomes more popular, theaters (except I Max) must convert to digital if they are to show 3D movies. This causes a huge decrease in the demand for color print film and reduces throughput at both Kodak and Fuji." and that's simple not true.Digital to Film via Filmrecorder together with Panavision's or similar 3d Systems is a cheaper option for Cinemas who don't have the funds or possibilities to convert to digital projection (a huge number worlwide).

Well, you see, that is the problem. The studios don't want to distribute film versions of the 3D movies, and therefore "force" conversion to digital. The theaters don't want to use 2 projectors, and even at the best, the one camera methods of analog 3D give poor results. That isn't to say that digital is "better", but it is a gimmick, or fad, that can be sold.

So, even though analog methods exist, they are not selling well to the theaters, as 3D copies are not readily available in analog format for most new movies.

You must understand that I am well versed in analog movie methods up to the most modern patents granted, some to Kodak, and from what I can see they don't sell if they are analog.

PE

maciekz · Sep 8, 2010

jamesgignac said:
I do believe that 3D has a place in computer use into the future - there are many companies working on 3D desktop displays (with great potential for organizing multiple windows in a sensible way), applications, and, of course, games.

I have seen 3D on computer screen some 20 years ago on a SGI workstations with LCD googles and more or less normal CRT display. It did work with some applications for example for protein modeling and was quite useful for that job.
Approximately 10 years ago essentially the same technology could be bought dirt cheap off-the-shelf for any PC from some nvidia-based graphic cards manufacturers. It allowed any OpenGL-based app/game to be viewed in 3D. This was not a big commercial success though.
This does not work for LCD screens (at least the popular ones) due to poor reaction times.

Worker 11811 · Sep 8, 2010

Photo Engineer said:
Randy;

What does the union have to say about # of employees and the wages paid? Rochester theaters have a projectionists union.

PE

Most big theater chains have busted the unions long ago. Most people who work in theaters are making minimum wage or slightly above. Most projection rooms are staffed by college students. You have to be 18 yrs. old to operate movie projectors because it is considered to be a "machine".

This thought just occurred to me: Now that projection rooms are converting to digital the "18 years old" rule might not apply any more. Digital projectors have no moving parts.

So, basically, theaters could be motivated by digital because they can hire 16 year old kids to come in at 11:00 in the morning, turn on all the power switches and press the "start" button then go downstairs and pop popcorn for the rest of the day.

Remember... If the average price of a movie ticket is $10.00, nationwide, the theater is only taking home about $1.00 of that. The other 90% goes to the studios. That's why popcorn costs $5.00 for the small bag.

Movie theaters are not in the business of showing movies. They are in the business of selling popcorn and pizza.

Consequently, theater executives will do everything they can to shift their resources toward selling food at the concession stand instead of spending money on the projection room.

Nothing about the movie business has any resemblance to reality. Movie theater and studio executives will lie, cheat, steal and occasionally kill to get their way.

The switch to digital has very little to do with quality or the presentation of features in 3-D. It is merely another series of lies, perpetrated by studio execs, complicit with theater execs, all designed to make a buck as fast as possible.

MDR · Sep 8, 2010

The Studios don't know what they want

and the Panavision as well as the Dolby 3d System are single projector solutions (2 approx. techniscope frames stacked one above the other) 99% percent of todays 3d Movies are shot for 2d presentation the 3d part was added as an afterthought.
And of course your right currently everything Digital and 3D rules in LALA Land
P.S. it's all James Cameron's fault (Avatar highest grossing movie. Money short circuits most producers and Studio exec. brains) 4% of this years Hollywood Movies were shot in 3D and they account for 11% of the ticket sales

marylandphoto · Sep 8, 2010

For a long time now, digital >>> analog in terms of convenience, which leads to more profit. Less reels to ship, instant transfer to the theater, someone mentioned the labor, etc. This is just an excuse to do it. Nothing else matters except the bottom line.

michaelbsc · Sep 8, 2010

MDR said:
... Money short circuits most producers and Studio exec. brains

I'm not sure I'd characterize it that way. Money is what a businesses manager is paid to go out and get for the owners (stockholders). If the bottom line looks better by hiring 100K monkeys to produce gels for animations the jungles would be void of monkeys.

Worker 11811 · Sep 8, 2010

michaelbsc said:
I'm not sure I'd characterize it that way. Money is what a businesses manager is paid to go out and get for the owners (stockholders). If the bottom line looks better by hiring 100K monkeys to produce gels for animations the jungles would be void of monkeys.

That is correct but with the provision that business managers SHOULD be looking out for the bottom line in the long term versus the short term.

I, as a stockholder, would prefer to have a few less dollars in my portfolio this week if I can have several times that amount in my portfolio 5 years from now.

michaelbsc · Sep 8, 2010

Worker 11811 said:
michaelbsc said:

I'm not sure I'd characterize it that way. Money is what a businesses manager is paid to go out and get for the owners (stockholders). If the bottom line looks better by hiring 100K monkeys to produce gels for animations the jungles would be void of monkeys.

Click to expand...

That is correct but with the provision that business managers SHOULD be looking out for the bottom line in the long term versus the short term.

I, as a stockholder, would prefer to have a few less dollars in my portfolio this week if I can have several times that amount in my portfolio 5 years from now.

Unfortunatly the *BIG* stockholders don't think the way you do. Most of them are institutional investors who get measured quarter to quarter instead of decade to decade.

In essence any stock in the DOW or the S&P 500 are managed to be willing to burn the whole forest in order to roast hot dogs today.

The problem isn't capitalism. We weren't that way in the first half of the 20th. The problem is the social shift that encourages the feeling of entitlement. The conservatives complain about the government entitlements without examining our own sense of entitlement. (Yes, I condemn my own political affiliates as well.)

We need to fix social attitudes as a whole, not one segment or the other. But all of that is fodder for another web site, not photography.

A big blow to film production at Kodak and Fuji

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency